MORAL AMBIVALENCE: Tim Kaine’s Stance on Abortion Reminds Us Of…

Kaine probably thought he was taking a virtuous stand in the answer he gave. One problem — someone else gave an almost identical answer. ‘Virtue’ is NOT something that man is remembered for.

Claiming to be ‘Instruments in the hands of the leaders’ isn’t a great way to show leadership. Duh.

Here is a clip from the Debate transcript:

KAINE: Elaine, this is a fundamental question, a fundamental question. Hillary and I are both people out of religious backgrounds, from Methodist church experience, which was really formative for her as a public servant.

But we really feel like you should live fully and with enthusiasm the commands of your faith. But it is not the role of the public servant to mandate that for everybody else.

So let’s talk about abortion and choice. Let’s talk about them. We support Roe v. Wade. We support the constitutional right of American women to consult their own conscience, their own supportive partner, their own minister, but then make their own decision about pregnancy. That’s something we trust American women to do that.

And we don’t think that women should be punished, as Donald Trump said they should, for making the decision to have an abortion.

…Governor, why don’t you trust women to make this choice for themselves? We can encourage people to support life. Of course we can. But why don’t you trust women? Why doesn’t Donald Trump trust women to make this choice for themselves?

That’s what we ought to be doing in public life. Living our lives of faith or motivation with enthusiasm and excitement, convincing other, dialoguing with each other about important moral issues of the day…

KAINE: … but on fundamental issues of morality, we should let women make their own decisions.

At his trial Eichmann talked about finding himself in a “new” and “unprecedented” political situation. On his account, this brought about a fundamental moral disorientation: “There is no possibility of comparisons, and no one can have any idea of how it was. There was the war. I had to do just one thing.” These words are chilling, but they are also tragic. “Just one thing” describes totalitarianism on a personal scale, the reduction of a single life to one horrifying purpose that excludes all other considerations – including morality, and humanity itself.

That he committed atrocities before then is beyond doubt, and there is no disputing the fact that he became an accomplice to a widening circle of mass murder that he helped to sustain with all his might. What makes his crimes so chilling is that they were not preordained by any evident pathology or inbuilt racism. Eichmann learned to hate, and to hate in a controlled and impersonal way. He applied business methods to the handling of human beings who, once they had been dehumanised, could be treated no differently from cargoes of kerosene. In his mind there was little difference between setting up a petrol station or a death camp.

How much should personal conviction shape public policy? It all depends on the letter after your name.

Kaine said some ‘Libertarianish’ things during the debate regarding faith and policy, but remember, this is the same party that legislates the size of soft drinks and says that we need to embrace the Trans movement and allow men in women’s bathrooms.

If the DNC ‘gods’ command it, it is set in stone. Everything else is… ‘meh’.

To uphold a law that goes against your conscience and internal moral code is not to be applauded, it is to be reviled.

‘You cannot serve two masters.’

Share if you think that Kaine’s stance on abortion is just like Eichmann’s on the Holocaust